Posted on 07/02/2005 8:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
If Bush nominated a person with credentials and judicial record identical to that of O'Connor's at the time of her nomination, that nomination would be filibustered.
Nothing in the Constitution limits the number of Supreme Court justices to nine. It started out at six. The President can appoint a tenth if he so desires. FDR did.
Why not just re-nominate Bork?
"believe Luttig is far more conservative than McConnell."
I'm not calling McConnell a liberal, which is obviously isn't. But I would trust him less than Luttig and some other people. The fact that he opposed the Clinton impeachment is a problem -- given that we're fighting what amounts to a civil war in this country, he should not have aided the enemy. If he honestly believed the impeachment violated the spirit of the Constitution, he should have kept his mouth shut.
Another problem with McConnell: Some of the liberal law profs endorsed him for the appellate appointment. Do they know something we don't? And what are we to make of the fact that he clerked with William Brennan, an outrageously liberal "justice"?
Very good point, "Okie." You're absolutely right.
Let me add this: The Rats' strategy will be to sweet-talk Bush into appointing a moderate like Gonzales. If he does, that squish will be confirmed, thereby avoiding any risk of the nuclear option. The Rats want to avoid a vote on the nuclear option at all costs, so they can preserve their ability to veto a Rehnquist replacement and other possible replacements should there be other vacancies.
Conservatives, call the White House NOW and TRASH GONZALES. Bush wants him on the Court sooner or later. Deliver the message: THIS IS NOT WHAT WE VOTED FOR, W.
It is far more effective to appear informed, firm, and positive.
An incredible statement. The next time you see something that you believe violates the Constitution, I trust that you will do the same.
And what makes you think I am uninformed and not firm?
I was expressing passionate opposition to Gonzales, which is the most important message for W. to hear right now. He loves this guy, God knows why. Cronyism in Supreme Court appointments is a disgrace, especially when it would lead to another O'Connor.
Who do I like: Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza are the ones I really trust. Luttig above all, probably.
Several others may be equally good, but I've given you three.
I said the SPIRIT of the Constitution.
The impeachment clearly and obviously did not violate the LETTER of the Constitution. If something violates the LETTER of the Constitution, I'd say there is NORMALLY an obligation to speak out. I wouldn't say that's always the case, especially when it would tend to be interpreted in favor of a dirtbag like Clinton and his White House mafia.
You seem to think Gonzales is OK?
In God's name, why?
Don't let their definition of "moderate" stick though. What they call "extremists" are really just strict constructionists very much moderate considered in the context of broader American judicial history. Use of that term by liberals is a ploy, in the spirit of Goebles, to shape public opinion: if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
No. I never implied that. I don't trust him at all.
Bork the senate, sounds good to me!
Then we could have Bork-barrel spending!!!
The Democrats will viciously fight any nominee Bush gives them....
Let's nominate Koko the Gorilla and see what happens.
What they call "extremists" are really just strict constructionists very much moderate considered in the context of broader American judicial history. Use of that term by liberals is a ploy.
Everybody uses political labels today. It's the thing to do.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.